IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-06 - key length is missing

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Fri, 05 April 2019 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B142C1205FC for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xb7WBp4RO_7a for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7588120617 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x35HtvlM024004 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:55:57 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id x35Htuts014400; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:55:56 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <23719.38572.739461.89978@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:55:56 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Daniel Migault' <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, 'IPsecME WG' <ipsec@ietf.org>, 'Paul Wouters' <paul@nohats.ca>, 'Tobias Guggemos' <guggemos@nm.ifi.lmu.de>
In-Reply-To: <02c901d4eaa9$f0c3e690$d24bb3b0$@gmail.com>
References: <010501d4e961$ddae8a90$990b9fb0$@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1904021250150.14241@bofh.nohats.ca> <CADZyTknc_aDoNqrXE2vt1k6sA-rW+yx4uk2QpcS8kF3MMEq5pg@mail.gmail.com> <018301d4e9e3$31b831f0$952895d0$@gmail.com> <003701d4e9eb$a810d9d0$f8328d70$@nm.ifi.lmu.de> <01ce01d4e9ec$b4415080$1cc3f180$@gmail.com> <005a01d4ea1c$e25e9420$a71bbc60$@nm.ifi.lmu.de> <024a01d4ea1f$dccf35c0$966da140$@gmail.com> <CADZyTkkN98mL2+s94bwKx0b2EbWMM6L37nHXLTZmeEQgWi6dUQ@mail.gmail.com> <026101d4ea34$84d186b0$8e749410$@gmail.com> <CADZyTk=GB+FQuF5p0otTvUfAh1RtNqo=FsDcChmJ46VD2ysXeA@mail.gmail.com> <02c901d4eaa9$f0c3e690$d24bb3b0$@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 25.1.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 1 min
X-Total-Time: 0 min
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/o9DpJ6oIDi5OY5SlBtCXK_kz7Xw>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-06 - key length is missing
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 17:56:35 -0000

Valery Smyslov writes:
> > One additional question came to my mind on whether we update the
> > RFC mentioned above or not. We could consider our document as an
> > alternate mechanism to generate the IV of the existing RFC.
> 
> No, since you define your own transforms (with own code points) you
> don’t need to update those RFCs.

I agree on that, and I think the new text is good, please submit new
updated version. 
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email